Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(1309)

Issue 29356716: Issue 4528 - Update StarSSL's timestamp URL (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
2 years, 9 months ago by Oleksandr
Modified:
2 years, 9 months ago
Reviewers:
Felix Dahlke
CC:
Eric, sergei
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Issue 4528 - Update StarSSL's timestamp URL

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : Use the Comodo timestamp URL #

Total comments: 4
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+1 line, -1 line) Patch
M build_release.py View 1 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 4 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 9
Oleksandr
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-13 20:18:46 UTC) #1
Felix Dahlke
I think this deserves an issue, but otherwise LGTM. (I assume you tested it? Both ...
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 05:20:18 UTC) #2
Felix Dahlke
On 2016/10/14 05:20:18, Felix Dahlke wrote: > I think this deserves an issue, but otherwise ...
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 07:38:22 UTC) #3
Oleksandr
Comodo URL worked fine as well.
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 11:01:25 UTC) #4
Felix Dahlke
LGTM!
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 14:51:08 UTC) #5
sergei
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#newcode28 build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" Just wonder, is there any difference between ...
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 14:57:58 UTC) #6
Oleksandr
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#newcode28 build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" On 2016/10/14 14:57:58, sergei wrote: > Just ...
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 17:08:16 UTC) #7
sergei
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#newcode28 build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" On 2016/10/14 17:08:16, Oleksandr wrote: > On ...
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 17:53:09 UTC) #8
Oleksandr
2 years, 9 months ago (2016-10-14 18:13:22 UTC) #9
Message was sent while issue was closed.
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py
File build_release.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#ne...
build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com"
On 2016/10/14 17:53:09, sergei wrote:
> On 2016/10/14 17:08:16, Oleksandr wrote:
> > On 2016/10/14 14:57:58, sergei wrote:
> > > Just wonder, is there any difference between
> > > http://timestamp.comodoca.com/rfc3161
> > > and
> > > http://timestamp.comodoca.com
> > > ?
> > 
> > The difference is in the company behind the URL. Since our certificate is
from
> > Comodo we would want to use their timestamp server as well. There is no
sense
> in
> > using another thirdparty timeserver for this, especially since it can change
> > without us noticing, as we've witnessed. Other than that I think the
protocol
> is
> > the same.
> My URLs are for the same company but in the first URL path is /rfc3161.
Oh. Understood your question now. Where is the /rfc3161 coming from? I only see
the one we use in the documentation. And it says that URL supports rfc3161.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld 87257f5